Superannuation - a good thing?

[Tysonboss1]

I personally disagree with the entire concept. I think people should be free to do with their money as they wish now, and not be forced by the government to have a specific amount of their money held for a certain amount of time.

Just a quick note,

Super is contributed by the employer, It doen't come from "Your" money.

 

[tothemax6]

Well this thread has all been very depressing, not quite what I expected at all. It seems that every other topic, no matter how right or wrong, always has opposing views, except super. Oh well, we could be living in North Korea I guess, then one would really have cause to complain about freedom and free markets.

Tothemax: I wonder if you are simply stirring with this thread? A bit bored on a Sunday evening?
You have shown yourself to be pretty bright and intelligent, so to demonstrate as you have in this thread so far such a lack of appreciation for why super contributions are necessary seems disingenuous imo.
Let's consider the alternative, i.e. if there is no compulsory super and no incentive to save for our own retirement via government co-contributions etc.
Inevitably way more people will need a government pension. This will have to continue to rise with the CPI or there will be a political outcry.
Obviously to fund this, you will have to pay more tax
You personally will therefore be subsidising all those people who spend their wages on the pokies and other gambling, and god knows what else, and who have not even the vaguest thought that they should be attempting to provide for their own retirement.

Regarding the funding/taxing, this is still has the presupposition of the need to protect the savers from future theft by the non savers (via the government), by controlling everyone's lives. I would personally rather see thieves jailed and everyone else free - lest 1984 be considered the ideal, crime free, freedom-free society.

Well, on asf at least, tothemax6 has never stated a viewpoint that he did not whole-heartedly believe in. I do consider superannuation plainly immoral, based on the same rules that dictate when other things are immoral, and I am not going to make an exception for superannuation because it is a popular 'norm', if you will. Actually, if you must know, rather than as a stir, this thread was triggered by me filling in a super-form on said sunday-evening, actually reading the nonsense, and having a bit of a think about the whole thing.

Just a quick note,
Super is contributed by the employer, It doen't come from "Your" money.

There are two sides to every trade. You exert labour, the boss spends money. The rate at which this occurs, we shall call the 'market rate'. It doesn't matter to him where the money actually goes - the boss simply gauges what money will leave his pocket as a result of your being employed by him, and what labour he will get in return.
Whether or not he pays that money into a hole in the ground, your bank account, or a super account from which you cannot withdraw, does not affect the market rate. That is to say, were there no super, you would simply be being paid that extra amount anyway in your normal salary.

 

[jbocker]

I dont find this superannuation thread depressing tothemax6, in fact I consider superannuation a good thing, it is a form of 'insurance' that pays a return, where the govt encourages me to particpate.

How do you rank welfare by comparison, is it worse?
What of death insurance? (I have heard people argue 'you are gambling on your own death')
General insurance? (Now this something I dont rate highly!)

 

[Bill M]

Whether or not he pays that money into a hole in the ground, your bank account, or a super account from which you cannot withdraw, does not affect the market rate. That is to say, were there no super, you would simply be being paid that extra amount anyway in your normal salary.

That is nonsense! I was around before the superannuation guarantee was introduced and I can tell you for sure, if the employers were not forced to contribute into the fund then you would get NOTHING extra in your pay. The best decision ever was the introduction of National Superannuation Guarantee. Many many millions of people would have nothing if it were not for it.

 

[johenmo]

That is nonsense! I was around before the superannuation guarantee was introduced and I can tell you for sure, if the employers were not forced to contribute into the fund then you would get NOTHING extra in your pay. The best decision ever was the introduction of National Superannuation Guarantee. Many many millions of people would have nothing if it were not for it.

Says it all. And I agree with Julia. People need to be saved from themselves. And we can not rely on lots of people to save, especially when they jobs paying at the bottom end of the income scale. There is NO discretionary income when it all goes on living, eating, etc. To believe otherwise is delusional.

 

[white_goodman]

sorry I wasnt here to back you up OP

superannuation morally is bad, and is a form of theft and impedes on individual freedom. Superannuation policy is just a bandaid for a welfare state.

The question is who is paying for superannuation, a few have argued its the employer which may be the case book keeping wise but in actuality is employees. If all was required to guarantee peoples retirement was to have super, lets make it 20, 30 or 60%, it wont work unless you want to drop your current wage rate significantly. People love a free lunch, but Im afraid in economics there is no such thing. its the same logic as applied to minimum wage laws. If all it took for a country to be wealthy was to have social protection via minimum wage, we could solve poverty in the third world. "Great success"

The only way you can get paid the same is if production goes up significantly higher to 9% or above, employers engage in charity whereby the employer gives an extra 9% at no cost to the employee. If you removed superannuation wages would go up (provided society is run on free enterprise with competition and no wage controls).

Now admittedly superannuation is better then welfare, but is still morally wrong as it requires govt to steal your own money away from you under the guise that they are smarter and morally superior and society is dumb. (Which begs the question, how smart are they if they are elected by such a dumb horde?) May I ask, who spends my money better, someone spending someones elses money on myself, or me spending my own money on myself?

The comments in this thread just show how far society has degenerated towards socialism. It would be nice if we could go back to a society where the expectations of govt were to umpire and be in charge of police, national defence, property rights, individual rights and ensuring contract law etc. Unfortunately the movement since the great depression is for govt to provide cradle to grave, big brother control of society to take care of us as we are too stupid to look after ourselves.

It always amazes me how people are quite willing to give up individual freedoms to government. Look at the track record of government and the type of people it promotes.

The problem is you cant absolve superannuation unless you absolve the welfare system, but hey more bureaucracy the better right?

 

[boofhead]

Super is good.

It also gives the economy a pool of investment funds that can invest for much longer term than many other companies/people would invest in.

If you look at census demographics you see many people that wouldn't save for retirment if optional - people on lower incomes or people where various costs are higher.

 

[tothemax6]

So basically, apart from white_goodman, the stance of those on this forum is "people need to be protected from themselves by the government for their own good". The funniest thing about this is that there where claims in the NBN thread about ASF being 'right-wing' . This stance is the most extreme, totalitarian, fascist, GDR, 1984-esque stance that anyone can possibly take. You lot believe you are being morally righteous, whereas you are being anti-freedom hypocrites.
Amazing.

Super is good.
It also gives the economy a pool of investment funds that can invest for much longer term than many other companies/people would invest in.
If you look at census demographics you see many people that wouldn't save for retirment if optional - people on lower incomes or people where various costs are higher.

Super is bad, you could just as soon argue that the government should take an extra 50% of peoples pay from them - so it can used as a 'pool of investment funds'. How about I take all of your money boofhead? I need to invest it in something . LOL, people should be free to invest as they see fit with their own money, everything else is a violation of rights.

That is nonsense! I was around before the superannuation guarantee was introduced and I can tell you for sure, if the employers were not forced to contribute into the fund then you would get NOTHING extra in your pay. The best decision ever was the introduction of National Superannuation Guarantee. Many many millions of people would have nothing if it were not for it.

Jesus Christ, it just gets worse. 'Millions of people would have nothing', if it weren't for the government withholding it from them until they are 60 - YES, and that's FINE. Who says people aren't allowed to spend their money when they want? I accumulate money, but that is not to say everyone else has to - is it? And we will extent your counter-argument as such: If we force (because that's OK of course) employers to pay their employees twice as much, the only effect will be that all workers get twice as much money, and there will be no other effects (such as the employer hiring less people).
Buy a book on economics, you clearly do not know even the basics.

 

[johenmo]

The question is who is paying for superannuation...

Govt doesn't, it's paid by employees. The super is counted as part of the package/rate, as are other on-costs. WG is right.

Now admittedly superannuation is better then welfare

If people who can't save don't have something forced onto them then welfare will be the alternative, and those who do save will end up paying (some of) the cost. You may argue that super is a deferred form of welfare. Pay now, get later!

I don't like the Govt telling us where to invest our money but neither do I want to work and then pay some of it to someone who didn't. Lots of parables/stories exists to this point.

Compulsory super is a lesser evil than taxing for welfare.

 

[Bill M]

you clearly do not know even the basics.

I must be doing something right, I'm already retired, not on super or the gov pension, how are your economics going?

 

[tech/a]

I'm self employed and the ONLY reasons I put MY money in Super is
(1) Its controlled by me SMSF
(2) Initial Massive tax breaks---which since I started are less than massive.

It lessens my cash flow for other investment opportunities.

 

[againsthegrain]

I have always been set on the same mindset as the OP, its my money why does somebody take it away and tell me what to do, im not 10, your not my mum or dad maybye I won't live to be 60! etc etc

I see it exactly from the centre line. People that are money wise, invest and are good at managing their savings (I like to think I am one of those) could always find alot better opportunities and returns for their super then those that are good at racking up debts.

It is no lie that probably the western society is split up somwhere around 80/20 or 90/10 in favour of those that like to spend now and worry about the future, well in the future at the last moment beyond the point of no return.

Then I put myself on the side line and think what can the govt do? How do you go about deducting who is responsible enough to get their super paid out and who will be forced to stay on it? A very big double standard to impose on society!

I guess as close as we can get is trying to manage our own super, a very hard thing to do. I have looked into it and I am nowhere near elegible to do it.

So my deductions and personal conclusion, we live in a society and have to be part of it and contribute to it. I guess for the greater good the smaller portion of the people that would be responsible taking charge of their own super have to be handicapped so that the general population can benefit and survive without taking the economy down.

Mentally I have written my super off, locked in the most aggressive plan that my provider lets me chose and close the book on it. I am only 28 so a few life times ahead of me, who knows if ill be around at 60 or if such a thing as super will exist, maybye we will be all living under the rule of China!

Life goes on other investments and opportunities await - we can't win them all.

 

[Julia]

The question is who is paying for superannuation, a few have argued its the employer which may be the case book keeping wise but in actuality is employees. If all was required to guarantee peoples retirement was to have super, lets make it 20, 30 or 60%, it wont work unless you want to drop your current wage rate significantly. People love a free lunch, but Im afraid in economics there is no such thing. its the same logic as applied to minimum wage laws. If all it took for a country to be wealthy was to have social protection via minimum wage, we could solve poverty in the third world. "Great success"

If you are half as competent as you suggest, then you will have no trouble negotiating a package with your employer which sees you receiving the salary you deserve plus your employer contributing the superannuation levy.

In that case, how would you be even slightly disadvantaged?
I'm sure if you were to explain to your employer your moral objections to even 1% of your salary being withheld until retirement age, if that employer values your services, he/she will quickly meet your demands.

Now admittedly superannuation is better then welfare, but is still morally wrong as it requires govt to steal your own money away from you under the guise that they are smarter and morally superior and society is dumb. (Which begs the question, how smart are they if they are elected by such a dumb horde?) May I ask, who spends my money better, someone spending someones elses money on myself, or me spending my own money on myself?

You are in the paragraph above totally contradicting yourself. 1. you concede super is better than welfare (and here we are talking about paying out the age pension), and then 2. you want the right not to be part of a scheme which will one day ensure no ordinary taxpayer has a higher tax burden in order to pay non-savers the age pension.
You can't have it both ways. Either you negotiate an appropriate package with your employer to meet your Super obligations, i.e. having the employer pay this, or you are happy to pay for ever after more general tax into consolidated revenue in order that irresponsible people can receive the benefits of your higher earning capacity in the form of an age pension.
Just get real about it. Perhaps just simply tell us whether you would rather your employer came up with the Super levy on your behalf or you happily agree to pay increased tax?

The comments in this thread just show how far society has degenerated towards socialism. It would be nice if we could go back to a society where the expectations of govt were to umpire and be in charge of police, national defence, property rights, individual rights and ensuring contract law etc. Unfortunately the movement since the great depression is for govt to provide cradle to grave, big brother control of society to take care of us as we are too stupid to look after ourselves.

Yes, you're quite right about this. It is simply an unfortunate fact of life that the overall society has to be geared to be as fair as possible to as many people as possible. This will never be anywhere near approaching perfect.

It always amazes me how people are quite willing to give up individual freedoms to government. Look at the track record of government and the type of people it promotes.

Again, I agree. But there is a difference between people willingly giving up their autonomy and governments removing it. Think about it.

Compulsory super is a lesser evil than taxing for welfare.

Exactly.

So my deductions and personal conclusion, we live in a society and have to be part of it and contribute to it. I guess for the greater good the smaller portion of the people that would be responsible taking charge of their own super have to be handicapped so that the general population can benefit and survive without taking the economy down.

Yes, sums it up well.

 

[burglar]

... Compulsory super is a lesser evil than taxing for welfare.

Call me a bloody weirdo, but I cannot see the subtle differences.

In A.) You put money away for Ron

In B.) You put money away for Ron

 

[tothemax6]

I don't like the Govt telling us where to invest our money but neither do I want to work and then pay some of it to someone who didn't. Lots of parables/stories exists to this point.

Compulsory super is a lesser evil than taxing for welfare.

Totally agree.

I'm self employed and the ONLY reasons I put MY money in Super is
(1) Its controlled by me SMSF
(2) Initial Massive tax breaks---which since I started are less than massive.
It lessens my cash flow for other investment opportunities.

Pretty much how I see it, will definitely use SMSF when I actually have substantial funds in super.

Call me a bloody weirdo, but I cannot see the subtle differences.
In A.) You put money away for Ron
In B.) You put money away for Ron

Well, actually in A, You put money away for You. Super isn't a social security ponzi-type scheme (which is much worse).

I must be doing something right, I'm already retired, not on super or the gov pension, how are your economics going?

Young and earning pittance, is how I'm doing . Probably doesn't have much to do with economics though, you'd agree that an individuals position doesn't actually have bearing on economic theory in general. Economic science is 'given, and being discovered' if you will, rather than 'being argued into reality' .

 

[white_goodman]

If you are half as competent as you suggest, then you will have no trouble negotiating a package with your employer which sees you receiving the salary you deserve plus your employer contributing the superannuation levy.

In that case, how would you be even slightly disadvantaged?
I'm sure if you were to explain to your employer your moral objections to even 1% of your salary being withheld until retirement age, if that employer values your services, he/she will quickly meet your demands.


You are in the paragraph above totally contradicting yourself. 1. you concede super is better than welfare (and here we are talking about paying out the age pension), and then 2. you want the right not to be part of a scheme which will one day ensure no ordinary taxpayer has a higher tax burden in order to pay non-savers the age pension.
You can't have it both ways. Either you negotiate an appropriate package with your employer to meet your Super obligations, i.e. having the employer pay this, or you are happy to pay for ever after more general tax into consolidated revenue in order that irresponsible people can receive the benefits of your higher earning capacity in the form of an age pension.
Just get real about it. Perhaps just simply tell us whether you would rather your employer came up with the Super levy on your behalf or you happily agree to pay increased tax?

- I am paid very well for a young tacker, and yes I would rather have my super in my regular pay, but as you know its illegal not to pay it, so i feel negotiation will fall on deaf ears.
- you obviously dont read, what I clearly said is super is a bandaid for a welfare system/state. Super is necessary because of welfare, if you remove both I fail to see how I will be paying increase tax. Then as welfare burden will not be around our necks we could move to a tax system a little more promoting of individual freedom, perhaps a negative income tax.
But yes I accept your notion that to remove super but not welfare we will have increased tax burden and age pension will drain us economically.
Also think of the growth in industry and production as there would be no need for immigration restriction.. no welfare = free immigration

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

Sorry I wasn't around to back you up as well Tothemax. Don't be disheartened from all those that drink the cool-aid that super is the ultimate form of investment. My views on super (especially super under a managed fund structure) are well known - for the majority of people it's not wealth creating, it's the reverse.

I won't have time over the next couple of days to wade into the discussion and give it the attention it deserves, but will come back and happily discuss it.

Cheers

Sir O

 

[Julia]

- I am paid very well for a young tacker, and yes I would rather have my super in my regular pay, but as you know its illegal not to pay it, so i feel negotiation will fall on deaf ears.
- you obviously dont read, what I clearly said is super is a bandaid for a welfare system/state. Super is necessary because of welfare, if you remove both I fail to see how I will be paying increase tax. Then as welfare burden will not be around our necks we could move to a tax system a little more promoting of individual freedom, perhaps a negative income tax.
But yes I accept your notion that to remove super but not welfare we will have increased tax burden and age pension will drain us economically.
Also think of the growth in industry and production as there would be no need for immigration restriction.. no welfare = free immigration

1. If you think our society will ever be without welfare, you're dreaming.

2. Would you really like to live in such a society? Aren't you assuming you will never, ever have need of any assistance yourself? Would you be just okey dokey if you had a catastrophic accident, or a major illness which precluded you from working?

Sorry I wasn't around to back you up as well Tothemax. Don't be disheartened from all those that drink the cool-aid that super is the ultimate form of investment.

Hello Sir O: yes, we know you are against Super. But in all our discussions about this, you've not managed to offer an alternative for all those who fail to otherwise save for their retirement.

And it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that anyone feeling Super is better than increased taxation in order to fund age pensions regards this as "the ultimate form of investment".

However, to hold within a SMSF most investments you can hold outside of Super in such a tax advantaged environment (15% for those who don't know) is hardly a miserable option for many.

 

[sinner]

The cognitive dissonance of this thread is massive.

To me the argument is the same as speed cameras in Australia.

In countries like Germany, if you receive a driving infraction the fine is minimal and the punishment is in the form of driver education mandates.

Meanwhile in Australia, if you receive a driving infraction the fine is maximal and this is the punishment in and of itself.

If you are going to force a society to do something, which is better? To force them to be educated (and therefore act in the most beneficial manner), or force them to contribute to extremely ineffective hedges against their own alleged lack of foresight.
Which one actually contributes to a healthier happier society and which one is merely an exercise in arbitrary revenue raising?
What's 15% of 9% of the annual income of every man and woman in the workforce and where do those billions go? Invested wisely into our futures? HAH!

 

[Intrinsic Value]

Superannuation is a good idea and a good concept but unfortunately in Australia successive governments have played around with the laws so many times that many have lost confidence in the system.

Additionally super has been very good to the super providers and their affiliated financial advisors. This is my biggest gripe with super. Most contributors have been ripped off mercilessly for years and the governments both past and present have been complicit in this rip off by failing to protect the contributors from the hidden fees and charges that have decimated many a super fund.

Still I think the concept is good and if you take control of your own investments thru a SMSF then all the better. The caveat is you never know when those greedy politicians eyeing the super honey pot will try and get their greedy hands on it.

I can't see any rational argument agains the concept in principle thou. We have health insurance thru medicare levy and we have many other forms of insurance and super really is a form of insurance that you have enough money when you get older to exist on. The reality is that many people would not save anything if they weren't forced too so super provides a safety net if you will to protect those people retiring who may have limited assets otherwise.